Simplicity needs complexity — as an antidote, as something to refer against — but also as a next step, outside from the very small boundaries allowed by simplicity, which can become boring quickly. Also, it is good to remember that artefacts which are perceived to be simple can involve very complex technology and/or programming, and are most likely products of long and complex design processes. In this thesis, the focus is mostly on simplicity, since it was considered interesting to know how an interactive event loop is triggered at the beginning of
126
5 Building simplicity
the interaction circle. The thesis does not fight against complexity, on the contrary, it is claimed that the role of complexity must step in after the system is used for some time. Again it is good to remember that we can also think about locating all designed systems, artefacts and products on a vector between simple to chaotic, with complicated and complex systems somewhere in between. More complex systems and content have to be learned, and complexity then allows a lot more information, a lot more choices, a lot more time to be spent with the system, allowing emotions to flourish and experiences to be born.
Table 5. The Simplicity Framework.
Qualities of Simplcity checklist
Simplicity by
reduction Simplicity by organisation Simplicity of affordances Simplicity of tangibility Simplicity of intuitiveness Simplicity of familiarity
Designed simplicity Leave only important things Organise in meaningful categories Guide the interaction properly Use under- standable lan- guage. provide understand- able ways of interaction Create an intuitive inter- action flow Use rec- ognisable elements and interaction methods Design checklist Are there only impor- tant things left to the artefact?
Are the cate- gories mean- ingful and balanced? Is the content ordered in a suitable way? Does the design guide the interaction properly? Are the preferred interaction methods obvious? Is the artefact understand- able? Are the interaction methods graspable? Is there an intuitive inter- action flow? Is the con- tent, media material and interaction familiar? Experienced simplicity Information was detect- able from noise The work appeared coherent The work behaved as expected It was easy to understand what to do The usgae of the work created a flow-like experience
The work was familiar and reminded of earlier works Usage check list Were there unnecessary elements?
Was the work organised well?
Did the work behave as expected? Was using it effortless?
Did the users understand what to do? Did they under- stand what the artefact was about?
Could the users use the work without thinking?
Did the work remind of an earlier work? Was it familiar?
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
Complex systems can be broken down into smaller and simpler pieces. In computational thinking, this process is called decomposition, and it is the first of the four key parts or tech- niques related to programming. If these simple pieces do not fit together, confusion or chaos is created. Complex processes, e.g. picking up new physical skills or learning something, require certain logical step-by-step actions and even mental processes where familiar patterns are rec- ognised and combined together, which help us to understand new information and learn new skills. But when the complexity is a result of careless design, the systems or artefacts become too complicated, confusing, incomprehensible, unusable, illogical (Norman, 2010a). Thus, there are at least two sorts of discussion and understanding of the word complex around us: it makes
sense to note the difference between fuzzy (diffi-
cult, confusing or chaotic) complexity and puzzle
(logical or complicated) complexity.
Fuzzy complexity is noisy and messy, con- sisting of various simultaneous competing or ran- dom signals. It is worth remembering in this case the other antonym for simplicity besides com- plexity: difficulty. Typical systems like these are poorly designed operating system interfaces in computers or advanced smartphones, which also contain other applications which have their own interfaces which might even be located within other interfaces such as in web browsers, creating a complicated multilayered virtual or mental navigational space which may be impossible to make sense of. On top of this, the computer or the smartphone is operated by physical actions, such as hand or finger movements, special clicks,
swipes, and gestures, which also need to be learned at some point. The human logic relating to the use and handling of such systems is built from previous encounters with various kinds of interfaces. If the interface and its various ways of operating do not make sense, messy and fuzzy complexity is felt. Fuzzy complex systems can be learned piece by piece, but they never really make sense, comments like “why is this button here?” or “why does this function do that?” can
s
Simplicity is a solution for
complexity arising from confusion.
On the other hand, puzzle-like
complexity is often needed for
artefacts with a lot of content
and different types of interaction
methods. In this case simplicity
can guide the process of learning
128
5 Building simplicity
still be heard every day from people who do not like the way their mobile phones or computers work. Systems remain chaotic and illogical.
The other kind of complexity is also born from vast amounts of data, interactive possibil- ities, visual, aural or textual information or content in a system which is meant to be used for many kinds of things, perhaps by many kinds of people, but somehow organised in such a way that we know what to do and why. I call it puzzle complexity, since it can be broken down into
many pieces that fit together as the user learns to operate the system. We talk about complicated systems. This acknowledges that some learning is to be done to understand how a bigger picture is formed from all the intricate parts. Other words might be learnable, reasonable, rational, logical or orderly.
An example of this type of system is the interface we need to operate to drive a car: it has various switches, physical controls and electronic buttons, but we can learn even one by one the correct use of the foot pedals, the steering wheel, the stick shift and the turning signals, adding other things on top of the basic driving skills, such as handling the windshield wipers, the radio, the lights, the air conditioning, the controls for opening the windows, etc., to finally be able to manoeuvre a car in traffic. In a sense, the operation of a car is a complex interaction system but can be broken down into separate parts by reducing them to the basic necessary elements, organising the control possibilities into groups, and using familiar controllers (from other cars and vehicles familiar from childhood on). Still, driving a car requires the training of new kinds of muscle motor functions, body movements, observation skills, knowledge of traffic rules and behaviours and a lot more, all of which help us interact with the car and other cars, drivers and traffic.
It is commonly agreed that driving a car requires such complex sensory-motor and obser- vation skills that we need to be over a certain age and certain skill level to be allowed to do it. You also need to prove that you manage it by passing a test or tests and hold a driving licence to be allowed to drive a car — but the car and the way it is operated can be taught to most people. When learning to drive, the most important skills in handling the car are learned first: turning the steering wheel, using the pedals for acceleration, for breaking and for changing gears. After this, other things, such as switching on the windshield wipers, handling the lights and so forth are picked up. The complexity of the driving system — the interface of the car — also constantly grows, since we keep adding new “intelligent” digital features to the driving experience, such as semi-automatic maintenance warnings, measurements of current fuel usage or mileage and
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
various combinations of these two, advanced controlling of the car music and entertainment systems, cruise control, navigation tools, etc. Many of these are used with various types of buttons and switches and menus which seem to date from the time of the first digital watches with two or three buttons on their sides. On top of this, the information is displayed on various screen displays, which distract our driving. So a new type of fuzzy complexity has entered our cars in the last 10–15 years or so, while the driving itself has gotten easier and smoother due to enhancements in ergonomics, motor design, and other driving mechanisms. Simplicity is as an antidote to fuzzy complexity: it should act as a cure for illogical behaviour, difficulty of use, messy organisation, unfamiliar or incomprehensible content. I also do elaborate on the limits of simplicity — why and when we need more complex systems, which can be seen as a puzzle, consisting of simpler pieces.
6 Simplicity Matrix —
case Climatable
In this chapter and following subchapters, my interactive art installation Climatable
(Picture 2, Picture 3 and Picture 12) is presented. This installation accompanies my research but has also been officially accepted as an artistic part of the research project. The artwork has been improved and presented on multiple occasions, simultaneously with research writing. The exhibition history is presented in Table 7 in chapter 7.1 Observations of Climatable in the wild. The constructive design research process of Climatable was illustrated in a timeline in Figure 9
in chapter 3.1 Constructive design research. The work is analysed focusing on the Qualities of Simplicity presented in the previous chapter. Also, a Simplicity Matrix is presented (Table 6, p. 155). It collects all the main simplicity principles designed for Climatable and also those qual-
ities, which are experienced when the work is used. In another words, the Simplicity Matrix is the Simplicity Framework put into practical use.
132
6 Simplicity Matrix — case Climatable
6.1 Climatable
Climatable is an interactive table with 4 separate hotspots for 4 different datasets which have been collected from various online scientific research databases. Used data documents climate change via the following data: CO2 levels in Mauna Loa in 1959–2007 (Tans, 2007);
Annual global mean temperature change between 1850 and 2008 (Met Office Hadley Centre, 2008); Seasonal sea ice extent in the Northern hemisphere from 1870 to 2007 (Uni- versity of Illinois, 2008); and Glacier mass balance change in km³ per year between 1961 and 2003 (National Snow and Ice Data Centre, 2003).
The software used for handling the data, compiling it to a visual output and manipulating it with the physical sensor interface was created in Quartz Composer -software, with Phidget sensors, which were later replaced by a USB HID -sensor board, and then with an Arduino mi- cro-controller. Information for the sound behaviour was channelled from Quartz Composer via midi to Ableton Live -software and manipulated using that program’s built-in effects.
The creative work which was premiered in the installation at the St. Etienne Biennale, November 2008 started slowly during spring 2008. I started out to create a politically some- what neutral audio-visual interactive instrument, but as I noticed my area of knowledge is closer to the field of Interaction design rather than to that of my original interest: abstract visual music, the work and the viewpoints in this thesis slowly changed towards Interaction design especially from the viewpoint of simplicity. At the same time, instead of searching the connections between abstract visuals and music, the topic of the work shifted towards an ecological viewpoint. Finally, after seeing the movie An Inconvenient Truth (Bender, Burns,
& Guggenheim, 2006) I decided to create an interactive piece on the topic of global warming, especially in the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic areas in general. I became interested in finding out what climate change sounds like, if the data was turned into sound through sonifica- tion, and what kind of possibilities would there be to visualise the warming Arctic in a different way, instead of via typical scientific data visualisations. Would the changes in recent years be drastic? Overall the main design goal was to offer the participant a new way to understand and experience the rapidly changing climate.
In the end, I wanted to create an emotional experience of climate change data for the
134
6 Simplicity Matrix — case Climatable
participant. The idea was to make to create an artwork, which raises curiosity with a distinct audiovisual presence. This invites the participant to see, listen, make sense and feel in a way that is not experienced when reading articles on climate change, scientific papers or news. One aim was to offer an experience of creating new insights and associations about climate change — sort of putting the participant in the place of the researcher who discovers something. Interac- tive art installations hold the potential for not only understanding meanings, but also creating new ones and communicating them. I have experienced the feeling of becoming the author or creator when using good interactive art created by others, and I wanted to offer this feeling to others hoping an emotional bond which is born between the user and the work will help deliver my message. Art can also leave some things unanswered, open, unexplained or uncovered, to create emotions and experiences in the audience. So, Climatable turned out as an interactive
artwork which enables new ways to experience and understand data and information related to climate change. With digital technology, it was possible to link actual climate change data (peer-reviewed measurements made by scientists around the world) to create the connection between the information, graphics and sound. More importantly, I wanted to see how this link can be controlled by intuitive, simple interaction. Again, adding the interactive component for me was important: the users must act or take action to reveal the information. Experimentally exploring the work can provide forms of knowledge — either critical reflection or self-aware- ness, self-experience or self-expression (Kwastek, 2013).
During the building of Climatable, there were a lot of things which had to be taken into
consideration, as the interaction as a whole is built up from many factors. The creative process raised questions and problems with many possible solutions. Questions in physical and spatial design and technological construction: How big and high should the table be? How does one enter the installation? What kind of materials, sizes and shapes should I use for the interactive elements? What kind of video projector is needed? How do the electronics and sensors work with the software? Where do I hide the cables? Questions in selecting and organising the data: which data can I use and have access to? Will the data be consistent with the other datasets in terms of time periods, measurement accuracy and relationship to global warming? Should the data be from a certain narrow place, the Northern Hemisphere or around the whole globe? Questions in visualisation: will the graphics be abstract, representative of the phenomenon, a mixture of these or something else? Should the graphics occupy the whole projected area or the area near the hotspot? What colour should they be? Questions in audio and sound design: will I
Qualities of Simplicity in Designing Interactive Art
turn data into music by e.g. FM synthesis or should I use natural sounds? How will the sounds/ music change according to data amount — change in pitch, tempo, volume, colour, harmony? Should I try some other, not so well-known form of sound manipulation such as granular syn- thesis? How does the audio help to create an atmosphere, and affect emotions or feelings? Ques- tions about interaction: will the participant be able to select a location, a dataset, a time or all of these? Will they be able to manipulate the graphics and/or the sound by their actions regardless of the data? Will a group interaction situation affect the system? How does the interaction begin and end? Which programming and presentation environment should I use?
Design problems are not solvable in the same way as, for example, with mathematics — with one correct solution (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004). There are many possible answers for these kinds of questions that help to illustrate what kinds of questions or problems arise dur- ing a creative design process. In the next chapter, the design processes of the five main building blocks of Climatable (data and information design, audio design, graphics design, technical and
physical construction and design of interactivity) are presented. The way in which the different Qualities of Simplicity in this thesis are used to guide the design will be elaborated. In review- ing the finished product, the ways in which Qualities of Simplicity are located in the design are also collected at the end of this chapter in relation to the Simplicity Matrix (Table 6, p. 155). To complement the table, the perceived Qualities of Simplicity — i.e. the users’ experience of simplicity — are represented.